Colonial: two questions

Posts applicable to the variant selection process circa 2015 and before. Will also contain subforums where approved & elected variants are "workshopped" for specific tweaks during implementation.

Colonial: two questions

Postby Pedros » 31 Aug 2015, 05:20

Colonial is already an approved candidate from last time's voting process, but I have one rules question which was not dealt with there and which needs addressing, and one map question which may (or may not) need reconsideration.

1. The map question: Sakharin revisited. There was very considerable discussion last time in the Premium Lounge about the best way to modify Sakhalin's position (between Russia and Japan). The problem is that in the original Sakhalin sits inside the Okhotsk Sea with no way of a unit there being dislodged. I will not go into the exhausting details of the discussion there - premium members who are interested can check it out at viewtopic.php?f=77&t=39440 . But one possibility - a simple land bridge from Vladivostock - was not considered a possibility because there was no known history of it being play-tested.

This option, however, was claimed in the discussion to have been the intention of the original design team, omitted in error. It has now been tested in two games here (Games 5 and 6), apparentlhy very successfully. I am not proposing that we reopen this discussion - at present the discussions in this Forum appear to be in abeyance - but if activity restarts I would propose that this option be adopted.

2. The other issue certainly needs addressing. The Suez Canal, in the original rules, can be crossed by a fleet directly from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea without having to stop in Egypt, but that "This is only possible if allowed by a unit standing in Egypt". After discussion we felt (I think pretty well all of us) that there should not need to be a unit present but that the controlling power should be able to give permission for a fleet to pass through.

However, consider the following scenario. Russia and Turkey have agreed to work together to take control of the Indian Ocean area. Turkey retains control of Egypt but has moved out, and the Russian fleet from Odessa is ready to move out through Suez in the Fall turn. However, in the Spring of that year perfidious Albion (ie the British fleet from Aden) slipped into Egypt, and so it's sitting there but doesn't yet control it. And of course Britain has no desire at all to let the Russian pass! Surely in this situation Turkey can't simply issue an order from afar preventing the British fleet from using its firepower to prevent the Russian fleet simply sailing past it?

This problem didn't arise with the original rules, whuch gave the decision to the unit in residence (if any.) I am happy with the general purpose of our rule, but surely if an enemy is sitting in Suez it should be able to prevent passage?
"Sooner or later, one of us will stab the other. But for now we're both better off as allies" (kininvie)
User avatar
Pedros
 
Posts: 12465
Joined: 25 Jan 2009, 12:59
Location: Somewhere full of gorse and brambles, West Cornwall
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1085)
All-game rating: (1314)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Colonial: two questions

Postby asudevil » 31 Aug 2015, 05:23

Agreed on both
Captain FANG, forum team championships WINNER
Part of the surviving nations of WW4/Haven

Unless I am in the cheater's subforum. 99% of what I say is NOT as a mod.
User avatar
asudevil
 
Posts: 16606
Joined: 18 Jul 2011, 02:20
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1351)
All-game rating: (1437)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: Colonial: two questions

Postby SaltySailor » 31 Aug 2015, 14:35

Pedros, regarding the Suez, the original rule sounds like the concept was that any force in Egypt could stop passage through the Suez. That a fleet trying to transit the canal would need the occupying force's support/agreement to get through. The change that was instituted extended this need for permission to situations where the "owner" was not present. I agree with you that an enemy force currently in Egypt that has not yet taken ownership should be able to block passage.

What I am not sure about, is why do we set it up so a transiting force needs to seek permission from an absentee owner at all? If there is no force present to block passage, why can't we have the transiting force slip through without seeking permission, like, I think, the original rules allowed?

In other words, if you want to control the Suez, you have to keep a force there, able to raise the chains, man the batteries, etc. and block passage, or conversely, support the passage of any force you want to allow through?

This would be a support order from any force occupying Egypt, supporting the passage of a fleet from Med to Red. Without this support order, the passage fails. Since this support does not require any action from the occupying force, it cannot be cut except by dislodgement, in which case the new occupying power stops the passage. The same sort of support order would be required to convoy through the canal.
`
¸¸„‹`˭˭˭˭˭˭˭|≡≡≡≡````````````````Salty Sailor`````````````≡≡≡≡„*|°„≡≡
ˡ-©---©......Classicists Platinum, Oldies, and Cup of Nations Team USA.....‘„¸¸„’`*•›„¸¸„.
User avatar
SaltySailor
 
Posts: 304
Joined: 12 Jun 2012, 11:50
Location: San Angelo, TX
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (963)
All-game rating: (1309)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Colonial: two questions

Postby Pedros » 02 Sep 2015, 17:51

Thanks Sailor. Yes, I agree, that was the intention of the original rule. But the change to "owner's permission" was thoroughly discussed last time and I'm not proposing that we reopen that one (though there's nothing to stop you doing so if you wish, but you might have an uphill struggle!) I raised it only because it wasn't an issue that was even mentioned last time and obviously needs an answer.

For myself, I don't particularly like the "leaps over the canal" kind of rule at all in almost any situation, although I can see it's usefulness in a situation like this (or the Panama Canal in Americas) where there is a danger of a "friendly" neighbour taking control of your centre when you were being kind to him. In general I feel if it was good enoughj for Con in Regular it should be good enough most anywhere (and in Regular the Russian fleet has exactly the same problem as it does here in Colonial.) But that's what was agreed and I'm not suggesting we reopen it apart from clarifying the position.

My own suggestion would be that since the general principle is that the controlling power grants permission, a fleet of another force which has invaded can block that permission if it wishes, but can't itself grant permission.

And before you say "Yes, but you've reopened Sakhalin" I would answer that the difference is that we knew in the last discussion that we didn't have a definitive answer to Sakhalin because the rumoured original intention - a land link to Vladivostock - had not been tried to our knowledge and was therefore ineligible. It has now been tried twice here, apparently very successfully. Situation changed.
"Sooner or later, one of us will stab the other. But for now we're both better off as allies" (kininvie)
User avatar
Pedros
 
Posts: 12465
Joined: 25 Jan 2009, 12:59
Location: Somewhere full of gorse and brambles, West Cornwall
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1085)
All-game rating: (1314)
Timezone: GMT


Return to Legacy Process & Workshop Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests